poison air poison waters poison soil
emissions
nosebleeds
cancer causing substances
a wsitches brew of mysterious chemicals
livestock losing hair
children passing out in showers
tap water rust colored which can be ignited with a Zippo
a Ponzi scheme for the new duped
America has been computer-cacooned with its packaged lies (the news)
what might heat us now just might immolate us down the line
property values failing
earthquakes
Playwright Larry Myers swirls words, whimsy, facts, metaphors & an array of characters in a Hallosween Hall of Mirrors
his play is
"Shopping & Fracking"
Dr Myers is a theater authority master acting coch and international award winning dramatist who run St John s University theater in NYC

there is a problem with the science of global warming as usual...universal gas laws are the key to knowing why extrapolated feed backs relationships in the popular theory are dead wrong. the average person should consult this little quiz to see what they really know about co2 gas in the atmosphere. http://voices.yahoo.com/take-atmospheric-carbon-quiz-see-smart-you-52848...

I am a bit amazed environmentalists would even allow an article like this out. America actually reduce carbon output? Where are the lawsuits to prevent this kind of article from existing? Worse, the socialists who love Europe must be having fits seeing the freer than europe america, without elaborate carbon tax and permitting scams has somehow without signing Kyoto had a positive effect, while the regulatory and taxing schemes of Europe have actually caused an increase? Maybe this article is some sort of joke.

While marching bands keep playing and cash registers go bananas - millions of Americans already enjoy having METHANE GAS delivered through their water taps...Can anyone in the world beat that for sheer technological genius?

You do realize that those people ALREADY had that issue before fracking, right? In fact, I'd say that extracting the natural gas should lead to LESS methane gas leaking into the water supply since the gas is being drained away.

It claims that this is due to fracking companies - particularly in America - not being obliged to use 'green completion' technologies to capture leaking methane. It claims that shale gas and fugitive emissions contributes 20% to US greenhouse emissions. Natural gas has overtaken agriculture methane emissions.

re your link: "although there is no evidence linking fracking to increased seismic activity, according to the US Geological Survey"

The study found a sixfold increase in man-made quakes in an area including Arkansas, Colorado, Oklahoma, New Mexico, and Texas against the 20th century average, the increase taking place over a 10-year period starting in 2001. The quakes were small, a magnitude just over 3.0, but there were even more of them after 2009, which corresponded with a sharp rise in natural gas drilling around the country.

"A remarkable increase in the rate of (magnitude 3) and greater earthquakes is currently in progress," Ellsworth and his colleagues wrote in a summary of the study.

"While the seismicity rate changes described here are almost certainly manmade, it remains to be determined how they are related to either changes in extraction methodologies or the rate of oil and gas production,"

If you look back at the last 10 years, the economist has consistently promoted the "climate change/global warming" line. So no I don't think your right here.

As for fracking: There is no such thing as a free lunch vis-a-vis environmental impact and energy production. Domestic natural gas appears to have some incredible advantages over petroleum production. Consider cost/benefits of petro vs. nat. gas in affordability, scarcity, international security, and environmental impact.

Agreed. Bad reporting. The EPA confirmed fracking fluids contaminated water in Pavillion, WY. University of Colorado researchers have documented cancer causing pollutants released into the air by fracking. The numerous cases of people lighting their well water on fire and getting sick from their water are documented and real. Fracking turns pristine aquifers toxic, decimates property valutes and creates cancer causing air pollution. Perhaps, the economist should also refer to the recent New York Times article in which oil company insiders refer to oil shale as a Ponzi scheme meant to decieve investers and wall street. Interesting stuff.

In the same period, the average quality of coal mined in the US also fell, meaning coal as a fuel is even less attractive purely in terms of energy.
"Years available" for coal has been falling rapidly from 200 in 1970s to now just over 100 years today.

CO2 emissions may well have fallen due to gas replacing coal. However, the author forgets to mention that fracking causes a lot of natural gas to escape into the atmosphere. Natural gas is methane, a greenhouse gas more powerful than CO2. As a result, producing gas through fracking and then burning it is just as bad for our climate as digging up coal and then burning it.

Your comment makes no sense. Fracking is used to release natural gas, so that it can be collected. That's the whole point of drilling. What's the point in drilling if you're not collecting the gas? You make no sense.

I have been following the nat-gas revolution for some time, and I am amazed at the people who are just now catching-on! The facts are difficult to refute, so the nut-cases just howl and lie about the "potential" unproved downside of switching to nat-gas from dirty coal and oil. The Economist, fine as it is, also usually ignores the reduction in the U.S. Balance of Payments due to the shift to nat-gas. Am I willing to accept a few minor earthquakes in exchange for energy independence, improved balance of payments, thousands of good-paying jobs, and cleaner water and air? Gee . . . let me think about this . . . wait for it . . . YES!

Even if this “improvement” in carbon dioxide emissions is accurate, the North Americans still have a long way to go. In 2008, and probably now, the U.S and Canada still had far higher per capita carbon dioxide emission (based on the burning of fossil fuels and cement manufacture, and perhaps other measures) than any European country except Luxembourg: http://cdiac.ornl.gov/trends/emis/top2008.cap

Funny how people can play with numbers for their own purposes. Countries that have little or no heavy industry import products from countries which do, and then brag about having a low carbon number. Hypocrisy has many forms . . .

The message of the article, for those who missed it, is that the U.S. has reduced its CO2 emissions and can reduce it further by continuing to switch to nat-gas, while the EU will continue to increase its burning of dirty, CO2 rich coal. Which is the better plan?

This is terrible reporting by the Economist. Go read the IEA material and you find:

1) their headline reports "Global carbon-dioxide emissions increase by 1.0 Gt in 2011 to record high"
2) the lionshare of CO2 increase comes from the economies with the strongest rate of economic growth, largely outside the OECD
3) their report on the US puts the modest decrease of CO2 production in 2011 down to "primarily due to ongoing switching from coal to natural gas in power generation and an exceptionally mild winter, which reduced the demand for space heating"
4) and the reduction in CO2 since 2006 is attributed to the combined effects of "US emissions have now fallen by 430 Mt (7.7%) since 2006, the largest reduction of all countries or regions. This development has arisen from lower oil use in the transport sector (linked to efficiency improvements, higher oil prices and the economic downturn which has cut vehicle miles travelled) and a substantial shift from coal to gas in the power sector."

You make it sound like increased transport efficiencies, switching to cleaner nat-gas, and reduced consumption (probably due to increased costs) are somehow a bad thing. Do you think that? I don't.

There are many moving parts in the energy story, and most people, including this author (whome ever he is), usually focus on one or two gears, and this author is no different, so cut him some slack. Let's remember that the IEA is a political organization as well as a "neutral" one. They have their agenda.

One more thing, I noticed that you did not mention the increased usage of dirty coal in the EU, nor mention the continuing surge in dirty coal usage in China and India. But you did slam the U.S. I guess you are no different than the rest of us, including the author.

MySetDancer you read a lot more into my comments than are there. I make no comment about Europe, efficiencies or the rest -- my main point is the woeful state of Economist reporting, who cherry picked this and that out of the IEA report. The ignored the main thrust of the IEA report and used it for their own narrow point. Yes, natural gas use has been a good replacement for coal. OK, fine. But that's not the whole story, yet the Economist report suggests that it is the whole story.

Pl.don't read if it is drivel!Any alternative to gulf oil should be welcomed.Part of the gulf oil money is recycled to fund terror, world over.Have you forgotten 9/11? USA leads in shale gas exploration.Let it, and show the way to the world.World could be greener and even less bloody!